Monday, June 26, 2006

On Killer Bees and Lamont

In an imaginary conversation with a rational Lamont supporter, I asked them what will happen if the war ended. Well that's not going to happen until Ned Lamont gets to the Senate, they retorted. And of course that's when Newsweek broke the story that a plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked for a time table for US troop withdrawal. Then on Sunday the NY Times touts the leaked plans by General Casey Jr. to reduce combat brigades from the current 14 to 5 or 6 by the end of 2007. This means that the Bush administration is looking for a way out with a quick declaration of victory. Just in time to bolster all those GOP congresscritters who desperately, when not seeking housewives, seek some positive war on terror news or conversely scary news in America to energize some sort of voter pulse.

Meanwhile deep inside the Honeycomb Hideout, the nucifera-roots were busily engaged in typical hive activity. With google as my intrepid guide, I entered "killer bees" as my search term and discovered:

Though their venom is no more potent than native honey bees, Africanized bees attack in far greater numbers and pursue perceived enemies for greater distances. Once disturbed, colonies may remain agitated for 24 hours, attacking people and animals within a range of a quarter mile from the hive.--Attack of the "Killer Bees"

Which brings us to the strange phenomena of what happens when a critical post of Ned Lamont appears. Instead of unique and diverse debate, a chorus of similar posts flood the comments. I suppose this obsession with guarding the hive is important when a candidate can't really differentiate what he would vote on differently than the candidate he's challenging. In a blind vote test, for example, a rational Lamont supporter would not be able to tell the difference between Senator Lieberman's and Senator Dodd's voting records. The difference is that negligible. The only fuel that is driving the Lamont candidacy is Lieberman and his steadfast conviction that for National Security reasons, we must continue our occupation of Iraq and continue the war on terror. Lieberman helps this along by writing and talking about this convictions, not realizing that he's trapped in the no win position of walking into a swarm of angry bees fueled by head hive Daily Kos.

So what happens if Bush out manuoevers Kos, and starts that troop pull out? What will the Lamont candidacy look like? Well, it'll look a lot like Lieberman's. Lamont has yet to define what he would vote on differently than Lieberman. Sure, maybe Lamont would spend more time saying the daily kos talking points, but is that really a good reason to vote for someone? Is that the fundamental rational of a Lamont supporter; that Lamont will echo the daily rants on daily kos? Let the buzz begin.

38 comments:

disgruntled_republican said...

Turfgrrl-

Great post. Only thing I contend (and its not with you) is the plan to withdrawl troops being political. If their is one thing we have learned from this President is that he doesn't do things for political purposes. As a lame-duck President, I don't see that changing.

Now I am sure that I will get numerous responses saying otherwise but I just don't see this being politics.

BRubenstein said...

Turfgrrl...this post was an amaturish attempt to smear Lamont and his supporters and you used a subliminal message and mistatements and half-truths to convince anyone seeing this blog that anyone for Lamont isnt " rational"

Your post is so full of errors...mis-statements..and willful distortions of the truth that one hardly knows where to start.

1. "Both Senators( dodd and lieberman) have a similiar or the same record"...nothing could be further from the truth..there are a number of bills..issues...resolutions for a number of years in which they took opposite sides...you have presented us with no evidence at all for your blowviating. Here are a few differences....the iraq war recent proposal by Jack Reed ( dodd for liberman against)....alito clochure vote....NAFTA....a host of other trade issues...and many more...i suggest that you contact each Senator's office and they would be glad to send you the votes..resolutions and issues where they diverted.

2.Use of the word "rational"... you tried ( but failed) to send a subliminal message that anyone supporting Ned is somehow not rational..while we realize you arent for Ned..do try to be somewhat objective..your silly and amateurish attempt to smear him and his supporters is just wrong and silly.

3. Ned has said that how we got into the war is as important as how we get out of it. He has stated that the country was lied to and facts were mis-represented to us as the truth when in fact they were lies,distortions and misrepresentations. Lieberman upon finding out that Iraq had no WMD and that there was no Iraq/AL Quida connection remains with his head buried in the sand...bullheadedly refusing to change his position upon confronted with the truth.

The blood of over 2500 good americans..not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed is as much on his hands as anyone.

I could go on with YOUR mis-statements...subliminal messages...half-truths and errors..but what's the point...you dislike Lamont and its evident by this undocumented posting of yours.

Gabe said...

Turfgrrl - If you ever want to talk to a rational Lamont supporter, just ask me. There is no reason to dream up a conversation...

disgruntled_republican said...

I don;t think you guys are being fair...

Gabe,
Genghis has done "what if" posts before; just because turfgrrl is on the opposite side doesn;t mean she can't do one.

And BR,
I think some of the "what ifs" she came up with could be a very real problem for Ned in a general election.

BRubenstein said...

Disgruntled...i submit that the general is anyone's race in a 3way...however...you saw my posting about the distortive info ( without sufficient research) she is posting..and the subliminal message that anyone who supports Ned is un-rational...while reasonable folks can disagree on various candidacies ( and you and i will...OFTEN) i respect you enough to know that your choice of candidate is quite rational.

BRubenstein said...

and my choice was rational as well...

bluecoat said...

I don't agree with your first suppostioan about "what if the war ended" because the war in Iraq has ended in military terms as I have pointed out before: the dictator has been captured and a new govt. has been installed; we are now in the process of building a nation with that govt. in a very violent situation probably more dangerous and violent than the war itself...and there is this from tha AP 15 Die in Iraq market Blast; marine killed
and this that I posted earlier todayJun 26, 1:53 PM EDTWhite House plays down Iraq withdrawal talk stating President Bush on Monday brushed aside reports that the United States is planning sharp troop withdrawals from Iraq, beginning in September. Such a decision will be made by the new Iraqi government and based upon recommendations from the top U.S. general there, Bush said.

disgruntled_republican said...

Br-

I don;t think she was taking a swipe at rational Lamont supporters like yourself. I honestly don;t read it that way but I guess rereading I can see how one might...but I think you are over analyizing it.

As for the voting records, they are similar BR. Sure Joe is a member of the gang of 12 (that is the one thing I do give him credit for) but all in all they are very close. The differ in opinion on Iraq and cloture in the Alito nomination but in general, unless they have a really hard time with the person, they have always voted for the President's nominee's and have voted similarly on just about every issue. I read the votes every week that congress is in session and I have actually posted about that very subject (doing the proper research)not too long ago(I would look for it but on my way out the door)...

I just think you need to realize it is a make beleive post. Take it as such.

bluecoat said...

I also heard Martha Radditz of ABC News who has spent considerable time in Iraq say that Gen. Casey wasn't happy about the leak - I don't know who leaked his plan - and these guys always have more than one plan that changes anyway in the face of the latest violence...

Gabe said...

D_R - recognize snark. I was not taking a shot at Turfgrrl, just letting her know I was available for actual conversations... ;)

disgruntled_republican said...

I realize that Gabe...should have seperated you from that...sorry.

CTAnalyst said...

I had an imaginary discussion with turfgrrl, in which I asked her if she was serious about talking about the issues in the U.S. Senate Race. She claimed to be, so I asked her about her comments about what Paul Bass wrote in the article linked to immediately before her post.

In The New Haven Independent, Paul writes, "So it [the Lieberman campaign] has tried to portray Lamont -- who, in direct contrast to Lieberman, is running against Iraq war, against Lieberman-supported Bush nominees like U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, against the Bush-Cheney energy bill, for universal health care -- as the Republican in the race."

She said that Bush nominees, energy, health care weren’t real issues. The real issue is how mean Lamont supporters are.

TrueBlueCT said...

GENGHIS--
You need to find a front page replacement for Turfgirl, preferably someone who can admit when she/he makes a mistake.

This diary of hers is awful. Obviously she is motivated here by past history, and it is really pretty sad.

Lamont is about more than the war. It is about the Democratic Party, and our message. As a former V-P candidate, Joe has had a special obligation to be a leader and team player, one which he has selfishly ignored in pursuit of a dream of being President one day. (yep, the McCain/Lieberman unity ticket.)

If the Republicans are now talking about troops coming home, it is only because of Democratic activists. And contrary to Turfy's allegations, we would all be happy if that day were to come, --before another young American dies as the result of a lie.

This blog is coming unglued, which is a shame. Please do something to pull it together. Thanks.

Genghis Conn said...

Satire, TrueBlue. Satire.

And if I called Joe Lieberman and his supporters a bunch of weasel-chewing dirtbags? You'd be fine.

bluecoat said...

Joe is a greedy chameleon; he ran for VP and US Senator concurrently because he likes his govt. check; it;s time for him to go and I am looking forward to new blood in Lamont or Schlesinger...don't matter to me all that mush right now...

Gabe said...

D_R - No harm, no foul...

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

Bluecoat:

Had to laugh when I saw this in your last post: don't matter to me all that mush right now

I know you've said you're not the world's best typist, but whether you meant it or not, you couldn't have been much more on-target. ;-)

bluecoat said...

ADA: you're right, too bad I didn't plan it that way..

BRubenstein said...

when Ned wins on August 8th the satire by her will really be good?

TrueBlueCT said...

Genghis--

Please don't be dismissive.

I'm not mentioning the Killer B stuff. I don't care how Turdgirl characterizes Lamont supporters. (readers aren't stupid, and it reflects more on her than me.)

What is irksome is her blatant disregard for facts. Honestly, there is a big difference between Dodd and Lieberman, both in their posturing, and as importantly in their voting histories. Is she working to blur the distinction b/c she is ignorant, or does she have an unstated agenda?

1) CAFTA after NAFTA
2) Gonzalez confirmation (think torture)
3) Alito filibuster
4) Bush/Cheney energy bill
5) Willingness to listen on Private Accounts.
6) Willingness to listen on vouchers.
7) Wife working as corporate lobbyist.
8) A woman's right to emergency contraceptives, at any hospital.
9) Public friendships with right-wingers such as Buckley, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter.
10) Support for the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

On all ten points Lamont and Dodd are in agreement, as against Senator Lieberman. The Lieberman talking point that there is no difference between Joe and Ned except for the war is a demonstrated falsehood. Why would someone repeat it?

Plus Turf's implication that our desire to end the Iraq Occupation is primarily a political ploy is just plain despicable.

BRubenstein said...

trueblue..i posted the same above..apparently GC doesnt want to believe their is a difference between Dodd and Joementum...let him live in his fantasy world..

ProgCT said...

The idea that Dodd and Lieberman have similar voting records is an insult to Chris Dodd. Both senators are moderates but Lieberman and his camp have gone off the deep end in crushing Democratic efforts in the Senate. He did his best to allow private accounts, he did his best to allow ANWR drilling, he did his best to allow torture, he did his best to promote our illegal immoral war of aggression.

tparty said...

Genghis Conn said...
And if I called Joe Lieberman and his supporters a bunch of weasel-chewing dirtbags? You'd be fine.

And you would be going against your own code of "civility":

---

Please don't:

--Call someone an idiot, or another name
--Insult someone else's intelligence, loyalties or beliefs in a personal way (it's okay to disagree, not to insult)
--Make disparaging comments about someone's life outside of blogging
--Make fun of another poster
--Accuse someone of being a staffer for a rival campaign
--Be a jerk

TrueBlueCT said...

How about if we just ask front-page posters to back their arguments up with facts?

And oh yeah, could we maybe expect for them to admit when they make mistakes? (instead of attacking those who call them out!)

turfgrrl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
TrueBlueCT said...

So turdgirl?

With all our time spent on the blogs, most of us have learned a little more about Joe's record.

What's your problem?

And what is it that you like about Joe Lieberman?

ctkeith said...

Turdgrrl,

I stand by what I said and am proud of who I am.

Can you say the same,Jackie,or do you need to hide your Conflicts of interest by remaining Anonymous?

Gabe said...

For the record...

According to the Q-Poll 23b, for the people who said that Lieberman does not deserve to be re-elected, the largest answer as to why was his position on the war (20%, 30% of Dems).

Second largest? Combine Too conservative/Right wing/Too Republican with Too Close to Bush - 18%, 24% of Dems.

That is the obvious difference between Lieberman and Dodd and it doesn't show up when looking at 5,000 votes (70% of them procedural).

turfgrrl said...

ctkeith-- Google is your friend. Use it wisely.

turfgrrl said...

gabe -- What's interesting in that poll is the second question. I'm not so sure it doesn't reflect more of the war related stuff, after all what else defines the Bush administration. I wish they had done a follow up on it. Kind of like I wish pollsters would do a follow up to the people who claim that Iraq/Saddam were responsible for 9/11, asking why they think so, multiple choice a) Fox News b) President Says So c) Guy at the bar says so d) Everyone says so.

truth squad said...

i am glad to see that lamont supporters ctkeith and truebluect proved turfgirl wrong and stuck to the issues..... by calling her turdgirl.

ctkeith said...

Turdgrrl,

You chose to make this thread about outing me even though I never even commented on it.

My names out there for all to see and google away to see if my motives are pure.

Isn't only fair that now you put yours out there and see if you can stand the same scrutiny?

You asked to be a front pager here because you wanted the spotlight.Lets see if you can take the heat that comes with the light.

turfgrrl said...

ctkeith-- Well, if you hadn't protested just now, I wouldn't have made the connection. I'm sorry that you think I posted that snippet about you, I wasn't. I picked it because of the quote, nothing more.

TrueBlueCT said...

Good God woman!

Will you please stop lying? Of course you knew CTKeith's real identity. Have you no shame?

TrueBlueCT said...

Hey Truthy--

You want issues? How about this. Have your guy Senator Lieberman actually hold an open forum and take questions from the public.

Why do YOU like Senator Lieberman? And are you a Democrat, an Independent Democrat, (cough), a Green, or a Republican?

What are your feelings about Joe's upside-down approval ratings, 65-70% among "R"'s, 45-50% among "D"'s, and will you continue to support him if he makes an Independent run?

Honestly, just wondering where you are coming from. A friend says you are Irish Ken, (as opposed to Italian Ken), and part of the Lieberman staff. Personally, I can't believe you'd post here, as a staffer, anonymously. (But then again, you've never commented about the heated gubernatorial race, or anything else besides Joe, have you?) That would be really low if you were on Joe's payroll, but participated in a grassroots blog under false pretenses...

"oh what tangled webs we weave..."

disgruntled_republican said...

TrueBlueCT-

You say:
"How about if we just ask front-page posters to back their arguments up with facts?

And oh yeah, could we maybe expect for them to admit when they make mistakes? (instead of attacking those who call them out!)"

I have always backed EVERY post of mine up with facts when pertenant.

Furthermore, I have, on numerous occasions, have admitted I was wrong on something. Ask BR as I have been corrected by him on a few occasions and admitted my mistakes.

As a frontpage poster I would ask that you not generalize.

(This comment in no way is saying that is not the case with other front page posters...they can stick up for themselves)

DeanFan84 said...

Disgruntled--

I love you man.

Whereas we might not always agree, I have no problem with either you, nor where you are coming from. Passionate debate is the beauty of the blogs.

When was the last time I made an "ad hominem" against you? Can't believe it was since the "civility campaign" was rolled out.

Anyway, I'm also quite often wrong. Sorry if you felt any of this was about you!

ctblogger said...

Oh Turfgrrl,

I tried as hard as I could to not comment on you but you're so dishonest when ctkeith replied to your singling him out (although he didn't comment in this post).

To say you just picked that quote out of the air is just laughable (which is just in par with your amaturish post).

See ya on the 8th :-)


If you can't take the heat, then maybe you shouldn't be posting here.